Chhattisgarh high court denies maintenance to woman divorced on grounds of adultery
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a woman divorced on grounds of adultery is disqualified from claiming maintenance from her former husband, thereby quashing both her petition and a family court order granting her ₹4,000 per month.
In its order dated May 9, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma observed that under section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), a wife living in adultery is not entitled to maintenance.
The case involved a couple from Raipur who married in 2019 under Hindu customs. The wife left her husband's house in March 2021, citing mental and physical harassment. She later filed a maintenance suit in the Raipur family court alleging cruelty and suspicion on the part of her husband.
In response, the husband filed for divorce, alleging that his wife was engaged in an adulterous relationship with his younger brother. He also claimed she had threatened to implicate him in a false case when confronted.
The family court granted a decree for divorce on September 8, 2023, citing the wife's adultery, and later ordered the husband on November 6 to pay her ₹4,000 in monthly maintenance. The wife subsequently sought an increase to ₹20,000.
Challenging the maintenance order, the husband's counsel argued that the family court had ignored the statutory bar under section 125(4) CrPC.
The counsel told the HC that his client's wife is not entitled to maintenance as she was found to be in an adulterous relationship with her husband's younger brother, which has been legally proved before the competent court, and a decree for divorce was granted in the husband's favour.
The maintenance order was passed without considering the statutory provision of section 125(4) that no wife shall be entitled to receive interim maintenance from her husband.
Specifically, a wife cannot claim maintenance if she is living in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without a sufficient reason, or if they are living separately by mutual consent, he said.
The High Court agreed, stating that the divorce decree, based on the wife's adultery, constituted sufficient proof of her disqualification from receiving maintenance.
"The decree for divorce granted by the family court in favour of the husband is sufficient proof that the wife was living in adultery. Once such a decree is in force, it is not possible for this court to take a different view contrary to the decree granted by the civil court.
"Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the decree granted by the family court clearly goes to prove that the wife is living in adultery and thus, the wife suffers from the disqualification to claim maintenance from the petitioner (husband)," the high court bench stated.
The HC allowed the husband's revision petition and quashed the maintenance order of the family court and the wife's petition seeking an increase in the amount of maintenance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Tension at Durgadi Fort as rival Shiv Sena factions clash during Id-ul-Azha prayers
Tensions escalated in Maharashtra's Thane district on Saturday (June 7, 2025) after members of both the Eknath Shinde-led and Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray-led factions of the Shiv Sena attempted to reach Durgadi Fort while Id-ul-Azha prayers were being offered at its foothill. According to police officials, protestors from both factions tried to ascend to the Durga temple atop the hill during the course of the Id-ul-Azha prayers being held at the base, resulting in chaos in the area. Prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the CrPC were in effect, and several protestors were subsequently detained for violating the restrictions. Leaders from both sides, including Shinde faction functionary Ravi Patil and Uddhav faction leader Vijay Salvi, led rallies demanding that 'Durgadi Fort should be freed'. Their convoys converged at Shivaji Chowk, near the Durgadi temple, where slogans were raised by supporters of both groups. 'Police took measures to prevent protestors from both factions from reaching the fort. The protestors attempted to breach the barricades, triggering scuffles and a standoff with the police. We detained several members in preventive custody so that it does not escalate,' Deputy Commissioner of Police Atul Zende said. Durgadi Fort has long been at the centre of a communal dispute regarding the control of a mosque located within its premises. Access to the Durga temple is typically restricted during Id-ul-Azha to facilitate prayers at the foothill. Members of the Shiv Sena have criticised the arrangement, alleging discrimination against Hindu devotees and calling for equal access to the site. The Idgah located at the fort has been under litigation since 1976, when the Majlish-e-Mushavreen Majjid Trust filed a suit seeking control. In 2024, the court ruled in favour of the State government.
India Gazette
an hour ago
- India Gazette
Delhi HC asks Govt to reconsider remission cancellation, directs opportunity for convict to be heard
New Delhi [India], June 7 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to reconsider the cancellation of the remission granted to a life convict, stressing the need to follow principles of natural justice. The remission was revoked following the convict's arrest in an attempted murder case. 'The liberty of a person cannot be curtailed through administrative fiat without affording procedural safeguards. Since the cancellation of remission results in the convict's re-committal to custody, the consequence is serious enough to require strict adherence to natural justice,' the High Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar case. Justice Sanjeev Narula, while directing reconsideration, asked the authorities to issue a show cause notice to the Convict and give him an opportunity before passing an order. Petitioner Sonu Sonkar has approached the High Court challenging the cancellation on the grounds that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order cancelling his remission was passed. The High Court noted that the Supreme Court has categorically held that any decision to revoke remission must comply with due process and must be preceded by the issuance of a show cause notice, disclosing the grounds for cancellation and granting the convict an opportunity to respond and be heard. The record does not reflect that such an opportunity was extended to the petitioner before the cancellation of remission,' the High Court said in the order passed on May 20. 'While the order was passed in accordance with the Delhi Prison (DP) Rules, 2018, which at the relevant time did not mandate a prior show-cause notice to be issued, the binding precedent of the Supreme Court now requires that such safeguard be read into the process,' Justice Narula said. The High Court ordered, 'Accordingly, and in the interest of fairness, the Court deems it appropriate to direct reconsideration of the cancellation through a procedurally sound and time-bound exercise.' The High Court directed the Delhi government shall within a period of 10 days from today issue a show cause notice detailing the specific grounds on which cancellation of remission is proposed. The Petitioner shall submit a written response within seven days and shall also be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, the bench said. The competent authority shall thereafter pass a reasoned order, after due consideration of the petitioner's response, within a period of four (4) weeks from today, Justice Narula ordered. Petitioner Sonu Sonkar moved a petition through advocate Arpit Batra challenging the order of September 24, 2022, passed by the Dy. Secretary (Home), GNCTD, affirmed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi. The sentence remission was revoked, directing him to serve the remainder of his original sentence. Sonkar was convicted and sentenced to a life sentence in a murder case from 2004. After completing fifteen years of incarceration, he applied for premature release on the grounds of sustained good conduct while in custody. The Sentence Review Board (SRB), after considering his case, recommended his premature release, which was duly accepted by the competent authority. On September 9, 2019, the Petitioner was released from custody upon furnishing a personal bond. However, while on remission, in 2021, he was named in an FIR of Police Station Subzi Mandi under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC as well as Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act 1959. He was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on November 30, 2021, and lodged in Central Jail, Tihar. The authorities construed the initiation of fresh criminal proceedings against the petitioner as a breach of the undertakings embodied in the personal bond executed at the time of his premature release. Advocate Arpit Batra, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the mere pendency of a fresh FIR, particularly one in which the allegations are yet to be tested through trial, cannot constitute a sufficient basis to revoke a remission. It was also submitted that the petitioner was neither issued a show cause notice nor given an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the order was passed. It is a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. (ANI)
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Call for police action against cow vigilante groups during Eid in Bengaluru
A group of concerned advocates, researchers, and social activists have alleged rising cow vigilantism in Bengaluru during Eid celebrations, and called for immediate intervention by taking such vigilantes into preventive detention. In a statement issued on Saturday, advocate B.T. Venkatesh, along with activists Vinay Sreenivasa, Zia Nomani and Sylvia Karpagam, flagged instances of cow vigilantism over the last few days by Hindutva activist Puneeth Kerehalli, who is notorious for such raids. Over the last three days in the run up to Eid, Puneeth Kerehalli has conducted at least three 'raids' in which he trespassed into private properties and took away cattle in the garb of 'rescuing' them in Tannery Road, Ahmednagar, and Shivajinagar. He has broadcast these acts live on his Facebook page. He was detained by R.R. Nagar police over one such incident, but was later released, sources said. Notably, this is not the first time Puneeth Kerehalli has carried out such acts. He was arrested for murder in 2023 when a cattle transporter was killed during one such acts of vigilantism by him. The complaint, submitted to the Bengaluru City police, calls for the preventive detention of such individuals under relevant provisions of the CrPC or the Goonda Act. The group claims that these activities are being carried out under the guise of animal rights enforcement, but amount to criminal trespass and communal provocation. No response from city police The activists lamented the lack of any urgency or response from Bengaluru City police even after they flagged these incidents. 'Despite the urgency, physical copies of the complaint submitted to the offices of DCP West, DCP East, and DCP North were not acknowledged or accepted, citing Bakrid holiday and non-availability of officials for receiving tapal (official correspondence). This lack of acknowledgement during a time of high communal sensitivity is deeply concerning,' the statement read. The activists stated that the complaint has also been emailed to senior police and government officials, including the Bengaluru Police Commissioner, ADGP (Law & Order), and the Home Minister, among others. 'Even as the Bengaluru City police are yet to act, Mangaluru City police have registered a suo motu case against Puneeth Kerehalli for communally inflammatory language used on his Facebook live,' pointed out activist Zia Nomani. The FIR in the case, says Puneeth Kerehalli referred to some 'muslim areas' in Bengaluru as 'Pakistan'.
